Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

bad games, often. good games are generally much cheaper

This is an opinion, not a fact. Many people would disagree with this.

as i said, i think it is sad to deny someone access to culture or knowlege, or anything that isn't scarce.

I think it is sad to be forced to allow people to access and utilise the product of your labour at their will, that is something you worked on hard to bring into existance, because "culture".

I would also like to point out that while a copy of a digital product is not scarce, digital products themselves are very much capable of becoming scarce.

another argument is that the current system awards good marketing instead of awarding good work, in my proposed system creators would be awarded based on the popularity and reviews of their work after people have played said work, instead of tricking people into buying a buggy and\or shitty game

I can agree with what you say the current system encourages. But in your system, creators only might be rewarded based on the popularity of their works.

these investors would be end users and organizations that make money off of distributing donations plus the sale of merchandising and physical goods like cd's, manuals, magazines, etc.

Yeah, this could work. But for merchandise sales to fund developlement like this it would require the publishing organisation to have a monopoly on that merchandice, or another company unrelated to the development of the product can prroduce the merchandise too (and probably cheaper, as they are not funding the development of anything) and potentially reduce the income of these development organisations.

[Bdthemag]

This is an opinion, not a fact. Many people would disagree with this.

Here's an off-topic video game related rant based on this, so feel free to ignore it.

Many people would also agree with it, but it IS a fact however that in general the budgets of the "AAA" titles have been rapidly increasing over the years. Much of this money is generally directed towards marketing and graphics, and publishers want to keep pumping money into it. They're essentially inflating their budgets, while demanding more money from the consumers. This is done in various ways. Through DLC, trying to stop piracy, trying to stop used games, etcetera. The reason we're suddenly seeing more nickle and dime tactics, as well as publishers looking for more ways to increase revenue even though it's not needed, is because they want to pour more and more money into a game. This may be seen as a good thing, but you have to keep in mind that money will just pour into the two main things they've already been pouring money into. This just means that more money will be pumped into advertising and marketing, resulting in more of a focus on building hype than building a good game. Have you ever noticed that some of the best games released each year are the one's that are either indie or low budget, while many of the rehashes and blunders of each year are the one's that cost companies millions?

[alexandertnt]

Many people would also agree with it, but it IS a fact however that in general the budgets of the "AAA" titles have been rapidly increasing over the years. Much of this money is generally directed towards marketing and graphics, and publishers want to keep pumping money into it. They're essentially inflating their budgets, while demanding more money from the consumers. This is done in various ways. Through DLC, trying to stop piracy, trying to stop used games, etcetera. The reason we're suddenly seeing more nickle and dime tactics, as well as publishers looking for more ways to increase revenue even though it's not needed, is because they want to pour more and more money into a game. This may be seen as a good thing, but you have to keep in mind that money will just pour into the two main things they've already been pouring money into. This just means that more money will be pumped into advertising and marketing, resulting in more of a focus on building hype than building a good game.

Yeah, they tend to be a bit wasteful in this regards. I just said games can cost millions, which may or may not be wasted on these thigns.

Have you ever noticed that some of the best games released each year are the one's that are either indie or low budget, while many of the rehashes and blunders of each year are the one's that cost companies millions?

Best games how? Highest-rated? Biggest-income?

I have no doubt that you feel like this, and thats fine. But keep in mind what you find "best" people may not agree with.

[Jimmy]

Also the bit about copyright being created to protect intellectual property of individuals is just false. You can go and pull up the law if you wish the intent is quite clear - its not to protect anything, it is simply to encourage more people to create stuff more often. The powers it offers creators and owners is a byproduct, not the purpose.

It's so interesting that in the discourse over copyright, most people completely ignore the fundamental goal of the laws in the first place. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Note that implicit in this is that the item must be either a work of art or an invention. The definition excludes media such as pornography, which isn't recognized as an art form and therefore can't be copyrighted. Interesting to note is that we must therefore assume all games are art.

It's also fascinating to view the steady progression of extensions over the exclusive rights to profit from a copyrighted work versus it entering the public domain.



Assuming an author lives for 70 years, the horizontal axis shows the year their work was published, and the vertical how many years must pass after their death before their work is public domain.

[XXSockXX]

Note that implicit in this is that the item must be either a work of art or an invention. The definition excludes media such as pornography, which isn't recognized as an art form and therefore can't be copyrighted. Interesting to note is that we must therefore assume all games are art.

Why does it exclude pornography? That clearly can be art, while also a lot of art has been called pornography at times. There are lots of copyright lawsuits against filesharers who distribute copyrighted porn movies. Though just recently a US porn producer lost a lawsuit in a german court, since the court decided that the movies in question were not art (or lacked any creative value), and thus were not protected by copyright laws. That may depend on the individual case however, and apparently it was the first time that happened.

It's also fascinating to view the steady progression of extensions over the exclusive rights to profit from a copyrighted work versus it entering the public domain.

The extensions probably have a lot to do with progress in technology and distribution models. There wasn't much to do with tie-in-merchandise and tv commercials in 1790.

[Neonivek]

Why does it exclude pornography?

Artistic Snobbery.

As well Porn gets a very bad rap in general and often in irrational ways.

MIND YOU I don't watch porn.

[XXSockXX]

Why does it exclude pornography?

Artistic Snobbery.

As well Porn gets a very bad rap in general and often in irrational ways.

Sure, that is clear. However porn is protected by copyright laws usually, except in the case I mentioned above, where apparently the court was displeased with the lack of plot or something.

[alexandertnt]

I cant see why pornography cannot be regarded as art.  this would seem to possibly just be the result of the squrmishness and discomfort it can cause people to experience.

Sure, that is clear. However porn is protected by copyright laws usually, except in the case I mentioned above, where apparently the court was displeased with the lack of plot or something.

That raises some interesting questions on what can be considered art, particularly how difficult it is to work out what has artistic value. For example I couldnt possibly see how something would require a plot to be considered art.

MIND YOU I don't watch porn.

Of course you dont

[XXSockXX]

The part about the lack of plot was a joke  .
The court said the movies in question just showed "sexual acts in a primitive manner" without the "depth of personal intellectual creation" that is required for something to be copyrighted in German law. I presume the "actors" retain their right of their own personal image, but this was a filesharing case. It was also the first time a court ruled that a porn movie wasn't worth copyright protection, which is why it was mentioned in an article.

But yeah, generally it is extremely difficult to determine what is art and what is not. There have been many court cases over things like that.
A famous one is the case when the heir of artist Joseph Beuys sued the Academy of Arts in Düsseldorf for damages after a janitor accidentally destroyed one of Beuys' installations. He won 40.000 DM in damages. The piece of art that was destroyed was a piece of butter placed in a corner of a room.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Neonivek]

I cant see why pornography cannot be regarded as art

Because people, generally speaking, do not respect it.

What people do not respect, cannot be art.

generally it is extremely difficult to determine what is art and what is not

No it is incredibly easy. Art is what is popular. Art is purely opinion and any objectivity in determining what is art and what is not has long since been lost.

Art is whatever you can convince someone else is art.

In other words the designation "art" is shallow.

The court said the movies in question just showed "sexual acts in a primitive manner" without the "depth of personal intellectual creation"

Let me just translate this to you: "It is of our opinion that sex cannot be art because we deemed it so. There is no real argument here and there is no thought behind our ruling"

The thing is that personal intellectual creation is entirely subjective. It is intentionally subjective.

Of course you dont

No I don't watch porn...

I also have no respect for porn and I don't like it. Yet I recognize that it is something that is deserving of copyright and the legal designation of art.

[XXSockXX]

What people do not respect, cannot be art.

Art is what is popular. Art is purely opinion and any objectivity in determining what is art and what is not has long since been lost.

Art is whatever you can convince someone else is art.

I agree with that except for the part about respect and popularity. A lot of art is neither respected nor popular. Not everything that is popular has necessarily a lot of artistic value.

Let me just translate this to you: "It is of our opinion that sex cannot be art because we deemed it so. There is no real argument here and there is no thought behind our ruling"

I disagree with that "translation", this wasn't about whether sex can be art, it was about a producer demanding a huge amount of damages from a filesharer. I have no idea what the movies looked like, but since porn is normally protected by copyright laws, they must have been really bad.

[Neonivek]

A lot of art is neither respected nor popular.

Ok, shoot. Name a piece of art that is unpopular and despised that isn't just "a painting"

Not everything that is popular has necessarily a lot of artistic value

That is why I also included respected. Wallpaper is never going to have artistic value because it doesn't have respect.

I disagree with that "translation", this wasn't about whether sex can be art, it was about a producer demanding a huge amount of damages from a filesharer.

These huge amounts of cash would have not even been up for debate had it been an ordinary movie that was REALLY terrible. I mean the worst movie ever.

If it was Disaster Movie (an apt title) it would have still won the case.

I have no idea what the movies looked like, but since porn is normally protected by copyright laws, they must have been really bad.

This is another country and international law is meaningless unless the country agrees with it.

I've seen programs pirated in certain countries because their copyright laws allow it, or movies, or books, or shows (Often it is that "If it isn't licensed in this country, we do not recognize it as a product deserving of copyright))

It is very possible that this is a country where porn is frowned upon and the copyright laws are intentionally skewed against porn so that it doesn't get sold in the country.

Don't forget that there was this court case where someone was selling pornographic comic books NOT to minors, and out of reach and sight of minors, and was successfully trialed for essentially luring children to porn because "comics are for kids yo"

[alexandertnt]

A lot of art is neither respected nor popular.

Ok, shoot. Name a piece of art that is unpopular and despised that isn't just "a painting"

Given your definition of art is "what is popular", I dont think this is possible... But I can try to explain how others may still see artistic value in something which is not popular, and how others can accept that something unpopular can still be art.

As someone who is into the underground-black-metal thing, I could make a very long list of bands and albums which you and very few people would have heard of. But If I show this to a normal person, who has never heard of these things, they generally have no issue accepting it as art. Many people I know of are turned off by this style of music (it is an aquired taste) but they have never claimed it is not art.

Ironically, some people may even consider its unpopularity as part of its artistic appeal. "Doing it for the art" sort of thing.



I also hope you got the "Of course you dont" thing was just a joke, I wasnt actually implying anything.

[XXSockXX]

A lot of art is neither respected nor popular.

Ok, shoot. Name a piece of art that is unpopular and despised that isn't just "a painting"

What do you mean not just "a painting"? Anything can be art. The piece of butter I linked a few posts ago was famous and despised at the same time. It even has an article in the german wikipedia. The artist in question was known for questioning common notions of art.
Also some of my favourite music genres like Noise are very unpopular outside of a relatively small circle of people. MUCH more unpopular than for example underground Black Metal, which itself is not "popular".

It is very possible that this is a country where porn is frowned upon and the copyright laws are intentionally skewed against porn so that it doesn't get sold in the country.

No, you misunderstood or didn't read the posts above. Porn is not especially well respected in Germany, but probably less frowned upon than in the US. It is protected by German copyright law. However in this - so far single - case, a court ruled that 2 specific porn movies were not worth the damages the producer demanded from a filesharer. I was merely citing the case as an exception, because porn is normally protected by copyright laws, other than what someone said a few posts above.

[Neonivek]

I also hope you got the "Of course you dont" thing was just a joke, I wasnt actually implying anything.

So your sardonic accusation was just abrasive mockery. Good to know.

If I show this to a normal person, who has never heard of these things, they generally have no issue accepting it as art

Because they still respect it because they respect that most (if not all) music is art regardless of whether or not they like it.

some people may even consider its unpopularity as part of its artistic appeal. "Doing it for the art" sort of thing.

Ahh the "so bad its art" deal. Either that or Hipster art.

Porn is not especially well respected in Germany, but probably less frowned upon than in the US

Sort of... The United States has a very strong porn culture. It just pushes it out of polite company.

What do you mean not just "a painting"?

Something that won't get a free pass because it can piggyback on other pieces of art.